What started out as a seemingly harmless fiction was merely the early stages of an all out jihad against manly pride. Eighty-eight years after we pretended that Earhart was like Lindbergh because a man flew her across the Atlantic, we now have to pretend that women are part of everything men do. When the blue collar beer brand Busch decided to use Joussaye Marie’s poem The Honest Working Man in a commercial, they had no choice but to include a woman as a working man too.

This doesn’t stand out because these are the new rules we live under. Of course we need to include women when we praise the honest working man. They have manly hearts too, don’t they? Yet if this were a commercial featuring Marie’s most famous poem Only a Working Girl, there would be no similarly absurd need to praise men as working girls.

Likewise, when Pep Boys runs a commercial, only Jack can still be a man. Manny and Moe must now be women:

Each of these individual incidents are in the big picture small, petty, things. Yet this pettiness is now institutionalized in our culture. All of this is part of the same petty impulse which leads to women needing to be in every role in our armed forces, including submarines, SEALs, and Delta. Women must be in every role or feminists will feel the intolerable burn of envy that somewhere, somehow, there is a man out there who is proud to be a man. Even worse, whenever men make horrific sacrifices for the nation, feminists will endure the unthinkable: gratitude towards men.

Men will always find ways to seek respect. As feminists shore up their blockade on manly pride for hard work, noble sacrifice, fatherhood, etc. men will find other avenues to pursue manly excellence. Feminists only hold sway over our legal and moral institutions, and this will drive men outside of these institutions. Our religious, secular, and legal institutions have been wildly successful at maligning the married father, but they can’t help but admire the tattooed biker who doesn’t care about their rules.

154 Responses to Unquenchable

I find it interesting that it takes a man of God to diagnose the problem of sin. I think most of us have thought about the ridiculous need of women to invade and co-opt male spaces but I think few of us identified that sin which leads to those actions: The sin of envy.

It looks like this sin of envy combined with men’s natural desire to please and be validated by women is going to be the downfall of Western civilization.

>>>men will find other avenues to pursue manly excellence.

Sure, X Box/Call of Duty. Men will find avenues to amuse them but the key to civilization is linking the rewards for manly excellence to productive activities like work and family. Any civilization that uncouples the incentives for good behavior and the disincentives for bad behavior will either adjust or be destroyed.

“Both our secular and legal institutions have been wildly successful at maligning the married father, but they can’t help but admire the tattooed biker who doesn’t care about their rules.”

Quite eye opening, speaking as the Hardworking, Taxpaying, Responsible Married Father. Or as I like to say: “slave”. Of course it is critical that the system keep this information from young men until they become hooked because HRTMFs are the fuel that keeps the whole system running. The feminists are helped by the Dennis Praegers of the world urging young men to sell themselves into slavery. After they are hooked, then is when you can make fun of them.

The problem is simple. It takes a woman to raise a child to become a “mensch” decent human being. There is nothing quite like a woman’s touch when it comes to that. And because women have given up on this as being an ideal of prime importance therefore people and civilization is decaying exponentially.. The idea here is that a child doe not automatically become a mensch decent person. It takes a tremendous amount of effort on his part and his parents to accomplish this. Since this no longer has value in eyes so the results are apparent. Since when is raising a child less important than shuffling papers at an office? And the point is this is by no means easy or trivial. It takes an amazing amount of talents to accomplish this.

Whenever the media celebrates/chastises some female achievement/horror, just remind them that the age of consent in Mexico and most of SA is 12. Women should be happy not to be in some Vera Cruz whorehouse, let alone strive to be a mechanic.

@Anon – Things can turn around. Vox has an article about other civilizations that did:

i.e. they beat other WOMEN’S teams more than the US men beat men’s teams (simply because fewer nations are willing to pour resources into female soccer). Hence, a complaint has been filed about the ‘pay gap’…

Been tweeting this since the election cycle began, but the social narrative of this election will be an over-the-top Red Pill melodrama. It’s already tacitly acknowledged that this election will be about the Fempowerment narrative and Hillary being entitled to the presidency because she’s a woman, but the pre-script will be a contrived victory of good (women) over evil (men). It’s already the feel-good conclusion.

But the narrative of the FI can’t entirely disavow masculinity on whole, so any positive reflection of it – as in the ‘salt of the earth’ proletariat theme here – women must be included for it to be legitimized. Masculinity is always “toxic” unless there are women to endorse it and allay any fears about it.

I think you’ll see more of this as the election cycle heats up. There will need to be a contrived effort of buffering conventional masculinity because the inevitable boys vs. girls melodrama will be so polarizing. Thus we’ll get hashtags like this:

I expect the FI to use classic shaming tropes that attempt to legitimize masculinity only in the definition that supports Clinton’s candidacy and later her legitimacy as a president. Only ‘real men’ will be “with her” anything else will be misogyny.

When a Powerful Woman connects with a Submissive Gentleman in a Female Led Relationship she is not merely meeting a man who will do her laundry and kiss her feet when requested. A Powerful Woman appreciates a Submissive Gentleman because he adds something to her life that is far more precious than service.

A Submissive Gentleman is a hero in this eyes of his Goddess.

He can do what no other man can do. He is capable of saying YES to every challenge she presents to him. He is willing to say YES to every request, not because he is obedient and lacking sufficient intelligence to make decisions on his own, but because he is her ANCHOR. He is highly skilled and will rise to the occasion, able to meet every need she expresses.

The average man could never be a Submissive Gentleman because he lacks the ability to say YES and take care of a woman the way she deserves to be cared for.

The whole site (and the men who fawn over the authors) is a target rich environment.

Interesting. From a bit of googling it appears this is an internet only ad campaign. This is an excellent strategy because:

1) Pro father messages are so rare there is a pent up thirst for them.
2) At least a few single mothers are bound to take offense.

1&2 will interact to make the ad go viral. It is ready made web drama. They get maximum exposure without paying to run the ad, and they limit their negative backlash from women who resent positive portrayals of fathers.

And it’s funny; if Amelia Earhart had been as good a navigator as Lindbergh’s wife, Anne, (who was a thoroughly capable co-pilot, radio operator and even glider pilot, but with no need for achievement in any of those realms) she probably wouldn’t have gotten lost.

Wow that “Conquer Him” site (“Submissive Gentlemen Are Heroes”) is The Rules on steroids!
Interestingly, it manifests modern hypergamy to the max: How do “leader women” screw up their female led relationships? By giving a guy a break who isn’t 110% obedient and performing perfectly. Lesson: Don’t give a break to a man who you feel sorry for, who is not up to being your supplicating Beta. Who is supposed to act Alpha so long as you are commanding him. And is telepathic, who knows what you want without your saying it.

Sad part is: some years ago I would have seen a site like this, thought it would solve my mating troubles, then tried to be a good Beta boy and Ohh-bey. After which hilarity ensues.

As will become true of any unfortunate collegiate-bound dude who may be steered to this site or one like it. Look out below. (The leader-type women won’t like it much either but they’ll double down on this, per the sunk cost fallacy: keep doing the same thing, it’s gotta work eventually.

@Dal, I expect it will go viral (as intended) before Father’s Day, but it will highlight women’s need to be included even in Father’s Day. There will be a need to prove that (single) mothers are just as capable at being Fathers, or fulfilling that role, as men.

Either that, or the standard appeal for men to Man Up and stand down on the masculinity and “just be there” for his kids. You’ll notice the father giving his kid advice on how to ask a girl out in this commercial still smacks of ridiculousness. My guess is a boy looking for that information would instinctively blow off anything his Dad has to say in favor of what he can find online.

There will be a need to prove that (single) mothers are just as capable at being Fathers, or fulfilling that role, as men.

Count on that becoming the dominant Father’s Day theme to be pushed by the MSM in the very near future. In fact, this Father’s Day might be the “inaugural year” in which this message is ground into our faces with particular urgency.

Any way you look at it, Father’s Day is going to become all about women, just like everything else has.

“My guess is a boy looking for that information would instinctively blow off anything his Dad has to say in favor of what he can find online.”

Seconded, from a PhD who has carefully studied PUA for several years, written a book on it (from a marriage perspective), and who also has a teenage son. Doesn’t matter what dad knows. There is a youtube video or blog that explains it better.

Count on that becoming the dominant Father’s Day theme to be pushed by the MSM in the very near future. In fact, this Father’s Day might be the “inaugural year” in which this message is ground into our faces with particular urgency.

I think this year will be pretty much like the recent ones. There will be much hand wringing about how to honor fathers without making single mothers feel bad, mixed with man up messages regarding the “missing” dads.

Especially liked the part of the Dad teaching his son a bit about romancing a girl. Nice to see that Dad use dance in the gambit. One of the best and easiest ways to impress the opposite sex, as most boys that age, are either too kewl or afraid to dance. (If you can dance with some style, you will have the girls eating out of the palm of your hand.)

Also the advice to look at her straight in the eyes, very profound. Nice to see that. Romance is such a beautiful thing.

And let’s not forget the pink ribbons, socks, cleats, et. al. Just wouldn’t be a major male sporting event without the pink mafia there to shame us into the obligatory color scheme and show of support.

I would expect Father’s Day will eventually be required to festoon itself with pink ribbons. To not do so will be spun as misogyny because, after all, there’s no such thing as a father unless a woman is around to make him one.

Count on that becoming the dominant Father’s Day theme to be pushed by the MSM in the very near future. … Any way you look at it, Father’s Day is going to become all about women, just like everything else has.

That is because women spend the most money, thus, the commercial media – which is in the business of selling – caters to women.

One of the themes of the (especially Christian parts of the) manosphere is that women are delaying marriage. This is true, and women’s nature (and “sin nature”) is part of that, but it’s also because there are virtually no positive media portrayal of young married women. Weddings, perhaps, but not of marriage.

Can anyone point to any major TV shows or films that show a happily married 22 year old woman pregnant with a child?

I dare say that the manosphere, including the Christian parts, are putting the cart before the horse. They are perfectly willing to point out that women are “herd creatures” but act surprised when women follow the script that the media lays out for them. As Dalrock (perhaps alone) has shown time and time again, the Church is doing nothing to actually counter this media narrative, and when it does, it’s simply to blame men for having less influence over women than the massive, billion dollar a year media industry.

Where has the backlash started? On the internet. The internet (including blogging) has lowered the cost of media and is also interactive in a way that broadcast media is not.

America and the world is waking up from a 100 year long binge of one-way, broadcast media culture from radio, to films, to (especially) TV. Considering this one-way broadcast media has been under the control of a hostile minority augments the nature of the one-way medium itself. “The medium is the message,” after all.

If teenage girls spent their time watching movies and TV shows portraying young women getting married and having children by 25, they would be scrambling to settle down with those nice “beta providers.” They are herd creatures, and social status means everything to them.

We will know people are serious when they stop complaining that women are attracted to masculinity, dominance, wealth and status and start doing something to raise the social status of young married wives.

As was noted in the last thread, Amelia Earhart was a media creation.

We’re complaining that a beer company ad that is ostensibly supposed to appeal to men actually includes a woman. Unremarked is the fact that a beer company is selling alcohol to men by idealizing blue collar labor, by flattering them.

The very white-collar ad execs who made this commercial thank you for your support.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that commercials appeal to women’s baser nature, such as their envy of men.

But you imply that *you* want to eat a sandwich that a feminist is required to make. I strongly recommend otherwise…

I’m afraid I must disagree (though I am open to correction if you can provide it). Just because I want women (including feminist women) to make sammiches doesn’t mean I want to be the one to eat the sammiches made by those women. For the most part I just want them making sammiches.

Let every woman drop her protest sign and pick up a loaf of bread. Sammiches must be made.
Let every woman quit her government subsidized career and get back in the kitchen. Sammiches must be made.
Let every woman cease her transvestism and return to a life of domestic culinary. Sammiches must be made.
The sammich making must continue. The sammiches must be made.

“If teenage girls spent their time watching movies and TV shows portraying young women getting married and having children by 25, they would be scrambling to settle down with those nice “beta providers.” They are herd creatures, and social status means everything to them.”

And how does this happen?

Their Fathers help them do it. Their Fathers teach it. Their Fathers exclude as much as possible of the corrupting world. Their Fathers don’t pay for college. Their Fathers have worked so that their mother can stay home and provide the role model for what girls should aspire to.

It needs to be emphasized every day to their daughters, from the time they learn to walk. Fempowerment must be maligned, the faults and unhappiness of Feminists must be demonstrated, and the fulfillment of femininity through children, marriage, and husband’s satisfaction must be lauded.

Hipster Racist @ 5:32 pm:
“I dare say that the manosphere, including the Christian parts, are putting the cart before the horse. They are perfectly willing to point out that women are “herd creatures” but act surprised when women follow the script that the media lays out for them.”

Speaking for Christianity, it’s the Biblical duty of older women to teach younger women how to respect and obey her husband, not us. Titus 2:3-5. To the extent the fathers among us have any authority at all, we simply turn off the TV. The boob tube isn’t healthy on a good day which is why you see little demand for counter-programming among us principled types.

Speaking for Christianity, it’s the Biblical duty of older women to teach younger women how to respect and obey her husband, not us. Titus 2:3-5.

The problem being, as I never tire of pointing out, that due to the complete saturation of the culture by Second-wave Feminism (2WF) affecting the last four generations of women, the so-called “Titus 2 Woman” is almost extinct in western Christendom today.

Hmm. This all smacks of a frame grab by feminists. When women enter a male space, as if to claim that “we can do xyz just as well as any man” the underlying frame is that men excluded women from these things for their inability to do them. But except for the most physically demanding tasks I don’t believe men ever said so. Both men and women are capable of doing the things considered the traditional gender roles of the other sex. For example, I know more famous male chefs than female, yet cooking was traditionally considered a female role.

The issue then was one of appropriateness to the task. Much like a computer can be used to solve problems or to be smashed as an outlet of one’s frustrations, but is clearly more valuable in the former position, women are of more value to society and themselves in the feminine roles of mothering and homemaking than in being the primary breadwinners. Their own biology speaks to it as, when given economic choice in the job market, they gravitate en masse toward nurturing roles such as teacher, nurse/doctor etc. and their revulsion to “kitchen bitches” and other forms of beta men is especially telling of their preferences in men (I have heard women say “Ew” merely thinking about dating a beta male).

When the feminist frame is accepted, men find themselves jumping through feminism’s hoop: let the woman in. For those familiar with MM, at this point dominance is achieved by the woman, not the beginnings of equality (as feminism would have you believe – another feminist frame). No wonder that disgusting site exists for female-led relationships: it is virtually impossible for a relationship to last with no leadership, so once a man relinquishes his lead the woman will take over.

Once women are in a male space they take over leadership of men (in substance if not in form, and at least partially if not wholly) and the world is screwed. The mere presence of women in a traditionally male space indicates that the women already have the upper hand.

These ideas are still forming themselves in my mind. MM is the most brilliant book ever written on social dynamics, in my opinion. You just have to apply it beyond mere PUA to see why,

I had to groan when I saw the woman in the Busch ad. Women just don’t do manual labor well. it’s too hard for them. They don’t have the muscle mass, the endurance or the drive to complete that men do. Leave them to their power dress suits somewhere in those nondescript middle-income jobs – the place where men figured they could do the least harm.

Meanwhile, in the feminist hell that is Australia, the working man is shamed into wearing pink:

This isn’t entirely related to the OP but if you’re looking for a good film that portrays men/fathers in a positive light you should rent “Night Crossing.” It’s a (old) Disney movie is about two East German men attempting to escape to West Germany. Re-watching the film I was struck by how positively they portray the men, particularly the main character played by John Hurt. It’s definitely a story about men leading and caring for their families even in spite of their wives’ concerns or worries.

It’s also a good film if you want to talk to your kids about the evils of communism and what life was like for countries trapped behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.

Dalrock: I haven’t really posted a comment before but I enjoy reading your blog. I came across an article I thought you might like to look over (as I have many problems with what it says, as I am sure you will as well.) I thought I might give you some grist for the mill, as it were. It deals with one woman’s article on her blog insisting that all men and boys must be taught to be Real Men so things like this stop happening and glorifies women as holy, pure and of course so much better than the mere, fallen males around. Was wondering about your thoughts: http://www.aholyexperience.com/2016/06/about-those-20-minutes-of-action-20-things-wed-better-tell-our-sons-right-now-about-being-real-men/

If teenage girls spent their time watching movies and TV shows portraying young women getting married and having children by 25, they would be scrambling to settle down with those nice “beta providers.”

That’d only work if the husbands are portrayed as unicorn men (alphas wanting to become faithful husbands). Eventually it wouldn’t work either way, because they’d soon find out that these unicorns are actually rare.

God explained his commandments. One reason Islam is winning is they obey the laws better than we do. Say what you want about the Koran, the Muslim family structure is far closer to what is written under Sharia than whatever we have in the USA or EU.
It is almost as if Islam said “don’t jump off high buildings” (echoing the Gospel where Christ is Tempted), while the secularists say gravity is relative even in the face of a large pile of dead bodies.

One reason Islam is winning is they obey the laws better than we do. Say what you want about the Koran, the Muslim family structure is far closer to what is written under Sharia than whatever we have in the USA or EU.

I’ve lived in the Middle East and grew up in a moderately religious Muslim household and I can tell you this: Islam has nothing to do with it. Islam flourishes in regions that are culturally conservative. Islam doesn’t make those societies conservative, they were conservative to begin with. I can assure you that the family unit is just as healthy in non Islamic societies like India, Thailand, Bhutan ect. Race and culture always trump religion.

Protestant Christianity is wimpy because Western culture itself has become degenerate and wimpy. Religion is part of culture. Even if Islam somehow succeeded in converting every single North American it wouldn’t mean that cultural Marxism would lose, it would result in Islam becoming just as pathetic as Christianity currently is.

Protestant Christianity is wimpy because Western culture itself has become degenerate and wimpy. Religion is part of culture. Even if Islam somehow succeeded in converting every single North American it wouldn’t mean that cultural Marxism would lose, it would result in Islam becoming just as pathetic as Christianity currently is.

You are partly correct, but miss the key piece, which is that democracy gives women voting rights, which women in turn use to undo the structures of civilization, since the female brain has more difficulty evolving past the stone age than some male brains (only some, though, as the presence of manginas proves).

The West became wimpy because women see the role of government very differently than men, and voted for a government that subsidizes hypergamy, AF/BB, and static social hierarchies. Even non-Christian societies that are prosperous democracies (e.g. Japan) became weak very quickly under feminism…

What you say is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that feminism IS the dominant cultural paradigm in North America now. It’s like my co-blogger Bay Area Guy often says: “Far from fighting the power, these leftists ARE the power.” Religion itself won’t save North America, there needs to be a serious cultural overhaul.

regarding Islam, I personally know a good few Muslims and from what I’ve seen American culture rabidly breaks down their will to keep religious laws in the first generation born or raised here. The men seem to have minimal resistance to the free sex offered up here and regardless of their own fidelity or infidelity the women are delighted to use the divorce system to beat their husbands into the ground. I know several Muslim families falling apart right now. Muslim married woman cheating with another Muslim woman’s husband. Families, homes, businesses wrecked.

Few Women are capable of resisting the Siren’s Song of the Frivorce. It’s pure, tyrannical power over a Husband. And we know what that type of power does to Men of good character. The results aren’t surprising.

Still, as a thought experiment it would be interesting to visualize a Muslim America. You’d have Muslim women like Insanity bytes agitating for women to lead the Salah congregations on Friday and also deliver khutbas (sermons). Rollo would deconstruct the Muslimah imperative and Imam Dalrock would call for a stricter adherence to Quranic tradition and Sunnah 😀

Outright feminist Christians are nothing new, really. They haven’t exactly been hiding — the entire “egalitarianism” wing of Christianity is openly feminist, even if some of them eschew the label, and the arguments they make in terms of their tendentious interpretations of Paul are also nothing new, unfortunately.

What Dalrock focuses on is more interesting — namely that the “complementarian” wing, which styles itself as openly anti-feminist, is just as riddled with feminism and egalitarianism as the openly egalitarian wing is. That’s an interesting insight, I think, and a provocative one among many who consider themselves “conservative Christians” or “traditional Christians”.

What Dalrock focuses on is more interesting — namely that the “complementarian” wing, which styles itself as openly anti-feminist, is just as riddled with feminism and egalitarianism as the openly egalitarian wing is. That’s an interesting insight, I think, and a provocative one among many who consider themselves “conservative Christians” or “traditional Christians”

And this truism has been my second red pill awakening in the last few years – that complementarians and most Christian ministries dedicated to the family, men individually, and women individually have departed from the truth regarding headship. They are functionally feminist even though they disavow it. The compromise runs so deep that few can see it – but there are glimmers of sanity, such as this blog.

Why is it, that I don’t feel threatened by the idea of ‘women in every role’?

Why would I want to be proud to be a man? It’s not a trait I worked for. Shouldn’t I be proud of my accomplishments, rather than my circumstances of birth?

The argument for women seeking to extinguish manly pride rests on the idea that one man’s accomplishments belong to all men. I don’t feel manly pride because another person who is also a man accomplished something. I feel it when I personally accomplish something. A woman somewhere doing it too, or even pretending to do it too, doesn’t matter to me.

>A woman somewhere doing it too, or even pretending to do it too, doesn’t matter to me.

Don’t pat yourself on the back so hard you ignore the overall social impact and the point of Dalrock’s post. My 18 y/o son doesn’t have ANY pride in male ability or accomplishments and he is currently living in my basement. This issue Dalrock has identified is part of the drip-drip-drip sapping away at male pride, male achievements, male effort, male initiative. It is part of the empowerment of all the yougooogirls Mary Sue snowflakes.

Paraphrasing Leon Trotsky: You may not be interested in the war on male achievement and pride….but the war is interested in you.

My idea that to be a mensch a decent human takes input from a good mother and father. This I saw was knocked by two comments. One said that was beta male thinking. I agree that I am not expert and also I am a last guy in line male. But I have seen a wide section of people and my impression is people with two good married parents come out better. Not necessarily more successful but more able to deal with adversity.

Avraham, remember the Christ Himself was “beta” enough to wash women’s feet on His knees.

This term is now used, not as originally intended, but as a feminist degradation of the vast population of men. Unfortunately, a lot of unexceptional, feminist men use it in this connotation to try to build their self esteem up.

My idea that to be a mensch a decent human takes input from a good mother and father. This I saw was knocked by two comments. One said that was beta male thinking. I agree that I am not expert and also I am a last guy in line male. But I have seen a wide section of people and my impression is people with two good married parents come out better. Not necessarily more successful but more able to deal with adversity.

I understood you perfectly, and agree with your original reply. It takes both a mother and father for optimal child-rearing.

Bear in mind that this blog has a loud and vocal minority of inverse feminist types, who will endlessly bark about how women are useless, and mothers aren’t necessary. These men “don’t need no woman” and borrow speeches from Gloria Steinem to make their points. Some of them endlessly sperg out about the coming sexbot revolution, imagining an all-male population masturbating into machines and watching VR porn, with test-tube kids raised in state institutions. I understand what motivates them (and many of them are justified in feeling angry — as this cohort has been screwed hard in divorce court) but they’re speaking out of emotion rather than logic.

Rather than fantasize about an all-male world, like the average feminist kook, I think most of us would like to see society evolve back to a patriarchal model, where marriage is respected, and both fathers and mothers are encouraged (both materially and morally) to raise traditional families. Well rounded people need both their parents, and optimally would have some amount of extended family members close by also.

My 18 y/o son doesn’t have ANY pride in male ability or accomplishments and he is currently living in my basement.

Not to be rude, but that reflects poorly on you. What does he like to do?

When I lived near my cousin’s kids (my cousin is a typical skank-ho single mom piece of shit) I would take them out to the gym regularly. They seemed to like being around other men (they got none of it at home) and then we’d go swimming afterward. If he’s more of the academic type, you could take him to conferences. Every university puts on such shows, and there’s often free food. I guess you’ve got to figure out what he would be most receptive to and try and get him into the world. Even if it’s just a video game convention, it’s worth trying to get him to meet other people in meatspace.

I saw the reply from the DeNihilist and thank you for your kind words. And I saw the reply from Boxer to my note and I think it is very insightful. And I saw Boxer’s reply to the person with his son living in his basement and I also thought that Boxer’s ideas there made lot of sense.

“Why would I want to be proud to be a man? It’s not a trait I worked for. Shouldn’t I be proud of my accomplishments, rather than my circumstances of birth?”

This is a subtle classic of motte-and-bailey argument, favored by many of the same people who will turn around in the next minute and exhort young men to “man up” and do their duty.

Of course, the motte is that being a man is strictly a circumstance of birth. Sex is not ‘gender’; it is objective biology. It takes no special talent to have XY chromosomes. The bailey is that being a mensch, a ‘real man’, an exemplar of virtue (literally the traits of manliness, from Latin vir), is highly socially conditioned. Men must indeed work to prove these traits in themselves to demonstrate manhood in this sense. To become a man that one’s fellow members of society desire to emulate, befriend, hire, marry, or even merely to f***, takes effort at something (whether that thing is societally healthy or not).

A healthy civilization is going to align the incentives for men to foster more of the efforts that are societally healthy, and less of the efforts that aren’t: reward virtue and dissuade vice. But part of the ‘red pill’ knowledge exchanged here is that much that is unhealthy in our present society is fostered due to our having forgotten that women are as attracted to vice as men are. A healthy civilization is also going to (whether by carrot or stick) align women’s choices of mates toward virtuous men and away from bad boys.

‘Women in every role’ is societally threatening only to the extent it exacerbates the problem. A role that is done equally by women as men cannot, by definition, be a benchmark of manhood. Either a culture defines and protects a social arena in which men display success at manhood and are publicly rewarded for it, or else one will spontaneously emerge that reverts to Darwinian natural selection — success at conquest and copulation.

If your son is unambitious and living your basement then that is your personal failure as a parent. Don’t blame feminists. Take responsibility for your mistake and fix it. My parents wouldn’t have allowed me to live in their basement and eat their food and contribute nothing even if I’d been so inclined. It was college, the military, a job or the door.

Men must indeed work to prove these traits in themselves to demonstrate manhood in this sense. To become a man that one’s fellow members of society desire to emulate, befriend, hire, marry, or even merely to f***, takes effort at something

Sure, but most of the things I take pride in seem like things I’d take equal pride in were I not a man. Setting goals and achieving them. Failing at something, picking myself up, failing again, picking myself up again and getting there in the end. Rectifying my mistakes. It’s these things I hold dear and they don’t seem gender specific.

Sure, but most of the things I take pride in seem like things I’d take equal pride in were I not a man. Setting goals and achieving them. Failing at something, picking myself up, failing again, picking myself up again and getting there in the end. Rectifying my mistakes. It’s these things I hold dear and they don’t seem gender specific.

Healthy women generally take pride in feminine things: Attracting and keeping a quality man, the size and trappings of the home, and the beauty and strength of her children. Masculine pride overlaps in some ways, but only very generally. A man takes pride in his yard, while his wife is proud of the new dining table and silverware. These sorts of things.

Women can force themselves to feign pride in things like career achievements, but if you really talk to one, it becomes obvious that her heart is not in the same place a man’s would be. We were wired differently.

htris says: “Sure, but most of the things I take pride in seem like things I’d take equal pride in were I not a man.”

Since you say ‘most’, then you apparently agree that there are some which are unequal: either more worthy of pride in one’s manliness, or less worthy. Shakespeare has the human condition down pat:

…And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

To work from counterexample: men and women are unequal in their relationship to the virtue of bravery and the vice of cowardice. Men innately abhor cowardice, in themselves and in others, and will go to great lengths to conceal it. Cowardice has been called the one vice that brings no pleasure to its practitioners. But while bravery is demanded of exemplary men, it is discretionary in women. Women will be applauded for a show of bravery, but they suffer no blame for its lack; it is simply not expected of them. (There was recently a case of a married new mother who enlisted in the Army and then deserted once she learned she would be deployed. Most of the internet comments on the news reports were to the effect of, ‘oh the poor dear’ regarding UCMJ punishment.) Self-preservation is a woman’s prerogative going back even to antiquity.

My idea that to be a mensch a decent human takes input from a good mother and father. This I saw was knocked by two comments”

Your original post, to which I reacted, did not mention 2 parents, but only the mother. I mentioned that a father was needed, and now you claim this was your statement all along.This Is just intellectually dishonest. But it sure shows our replies got to you. Now use this as a learning moment, and some good can come out of it. Butthurt won’t bring you anywhere.

To set himself a goal and to achieve it. As a man, he cannot give birth, hence he has no inherent purpose. To simply be included in society, men must do, whilst women must merely be. It’s his accomplishments that matter and to take pride in those who accomplished before him gives him a role model.

You are here to cause problems. With your musings about nothing being manly or inherently to do with men. If there is nothing that men can strive for that make them ‘men’ and to be admired, then in the end, nothing will be done. That is why. Any other shit you say, I will ignore. Go fuck yourself!

Your original post, to which I reacted, did not mention 2 parents, but only the mother.

Actually, that’s untrue. Here’s a snippet of the original.

The idea here is that a child doe not automatically become a mensch decent person. It takes a tremendous amount of effort on his part and his parents to accomplish this.

I’m assuming (given the fact that I’ve read his responses here) that “parents” is defined in the traditional way — as opposed to the “three gay dudes and a sex robot” model that is becoming prevalent in our edgy, progressive Hollywood generated pseduoreality.

Avraham nowhere deprecated the role of the father. He just thinks mothers are important too. I agree, as would any normal, right thinking person who is not a tranny, faggot, or feminist.

htris @ 5:04 am:
“Why would I want to be proud to be a man? It’s not a trait I worked for. Shouldn’t I be proud of my accomplishments, rather than my circumstances of birth?”

We are proud to be men because God made us men, His work is good and being a manly man feels glorious. The power, the strength, the confidence. Every day the world is a little smaller. We hold a God-given birthright to rule. No wonder women envy us. But you, you would deny us our glory with lies that being a man is nothing special. Do you realize what you people believe?

Fact: Women are at least as capable as men at everything.
Problem #1: Reality keeps indicating women are inferior to men for unknown reasons.
Solution #1: Showcase women who can perform the same jobs men do.
Problem #2: The only female lumberjack is an obvious circus freak.
Solution #2: Define manhood by accomplishments that ordinary, pretty women can also achieve, like flying planes.
Problem #3: Women STILL underperform compared to men.
Solution #3: Falsify the evidence so it proves what we know is true. Exceptions disprove the rule so we only need to fake the “First” woman to do whatever.

@htris, “But why should he have pride in the accomplishments of others?” Please forgive the length of my answer. Much of it came to me as I wrote.

It seems that this pride in the accomplishments of others is more akin to a nation having pride in its troops or in its sports teams, or an individual having pride in the achievements of a sibling. While not a personal achievement, there is a human instinct that allows us to feel pride in the achievements of those we are connected to in some way. It is pride by association. This is not just blood connection or national identity. Simply choosing someone as a mate or role model creates a connection with them that can allow this pride-by-association to develop. Think how fans of an artist take delight when that artist wins an award. Frankly I believe MTV awards have figured out that if you want people to keep watching your awards show, you must give awards to the most popular artists. That will give you viewers like a well-achieving sports team attracts viewers to its matches.

But your question was why you should feel this pride, not why you do. I haven’t figured this out yet, but one benefit I can see is that in cases where the achiever is a role model it can actually inspire and motivate you to pursue undaunted your own dreams, even if the rest of society doubts them, and ultimately achieve similar levels of accomplishment, thus making yourself a source of pride-by-association and inspiring a new generation to do the same with their own dreams. It is a very effective way to move progress forward, especially for men.

And here we can see why the feminist attepts to erode manly pride all these years by showing a woman doing the same “just a good as any man” is so destructive. Today we have a generation of men who lack role models to emulate, while women are taking over those previously male roles in an effort to emulate these Earhart-type “pioneer” women, having seen the praise that was lavished onto them for it. Thus both men and women are diverted from the paths they truly biologically were designed to pursue, and we end up with a failed society of weak “nice” men, strong “bad boys”and unhappy women.

So why should you take pride in the accomplishments of other (men)? Well we have a right to choose not to, just like one may choose not to associate with someone and thus free themselves of pride- or (even) shame-by-association, but I submit that in our time it is our manly duty to support one another as a gender. That includes both supporting men with praise or respect for male achievements as well as vilifying men who draw the rest of us back. Why is it our duty? Because traditionally war is the abode of men, and we are at war. Feminism is on the move. Without rest it creeps into the minds of all it can reach and infects them with its doctrine, eradicating the last vestiges of true masculinity that it can find like cancer in a living body. And the people open their doors and welcome it, because it pretends to be a force for good. At this point taking pride in masculine achievements may be the best way we have left to promote traditional masculinity, to give it a fighting chance. Feminism will definitely win as long as nobody opposes it. And if it wins, everybody, including the feminists, will lose.

I understand your sports team/musician analogy, but it feels like their efforts have currency with us because we chose them. Are you saying that you personally experience an affinity for the entirety of the ‘brotherhood’, or just a subset? Who are your brothers, and why are they your brothers?

Dear Boxer
I see what you mean with respect to Avraham’s initial comment. But I don’t quite get your reference to trannys, faggots and feminist. A lot of these people actually believe that strong male influence is nefarious for a child. So I don’t know how this argument is supposed to fit in your overall point, but on second thought, I don’t care either. Have a nice weekend

Actually I grew up fully believing the lie that women were no different from men except physically. None of my achievements ever made me think of myself as more of a man. They made me feel more confident and important, but I never associated them with being a man. I never knew what masculinity even is. When a man showed great achievement I attributed it to the brilliance of the human condition as a whole, not of men in particular.

So no, I have no affinity for a brotherhood. But that is why I read blogs like this one. Bit by bit I am re-educating myself in the lost art of what it means to be a man, to take back what the feminine imperative took from me when I was too young to know the consequences, let alone protest. This article and the comments are a good example of this, because it is literally in answering your social construct argument that I realised the need for men to band together in support of masculine virtue, rather than just watching the decline and doing nothing about it.

What Dalrock focuses on is more interesting — namely that the “complementarian” wing, which styles itself as openly anti-feminist, is just as riddled with feminism and egalitarianism as the openly egalitarian wing is. That’s an interesting insight, I think, and a provocative one among many who consider themselves “conservative Christians” or “traditional Christians”.

Yeah, I’m a paying member on a couple of dating sites again. (In both cases, I had buyer’s remorse pretty much the instants I completed the payments, but I’m not getting any younger, so I figured I’d give it a try again). Anyway, lately, I’ve encountered some profiles of women who are or at least think they are traditional in their marriage views but then list Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Tim Keller, Wayne Grudem, and Matt Chandler (always Matt Chandler) as among their favorite theologians. Of course, I guess it’s good that these women are even thinking along marriage lines at all, but if they only knew…

I want to thank the critics and defenders of my comments. Mainly Boxer I want to thank for taking the effort to understand that two married loving parents are necessary conditions for a decent human being.

My homeland (and your neighbour to the North) Canada continues to bow down to all petty grievances by any/all special interest groups.

A members bill just passed the House of Commons to make our National Anthem ‘gender neutral’.

O Canada!
Our home and native land!

(Offensive line)
True patriot love in all thy SONS command.

(To be replaced with:)
True patriot love in all of US command

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

This is a ‘dismissive’ to all the men who founded, built, protected, & fought for this country.
I expect the word ‘God’ in the 8th line will be the next to come under attack.

Taking a cue from Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Apple, and as part of a wider initiative for family-friendly policies, the Department of Defense created a pilot program that will pay for active duty servicewomen to freeze their eggs.The fertility preservation option is meant to encourage women in their 20’s and 30’s to stay in the military service.

Hank FlandersAnyway, lately, I’ve encountered some profiles of women who are or at least think they are traditional in their marriage views but then list Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Tim Keller, Wayne Grudem, and Matt Chandler (always Matt Chandler) as among their favorite theologians. Of course, I guess it’s good that these women are even thinking along marriage lines at all, but if they only knew…

Groupthink. There’s a lot of groupthink in the churches, and churchgoing women. Piper / Keller / Grudem / Chandler are popular among Protestants partly due to groupthink, “everyone ELSE likes this man’s writings…” and perhaps partly because there hasn’t been a real alternative until recently. Piper made his franchise back 30 years ago, in the 1980’s, and has been milking it ever since, for example. The other day I was listening to a man who had been to Eastern Europe, churchgoing man, who was pleased that independent churches are springing up there 20-odd years after Communism failed. He said that there are new ministers, who work jobs but also preach, and they are learning from the US churches. Who are they learning from? Keller, Piper, Gospel Coalition, even Acts 29 which means Driscoll. I just sighed. But what is the alternative, for them that aren’t Catholic? Pull up Amazon or fire up a search engine and what do you find?

Some serious men need to write some serious books, maybe crib off of older writers to do so, for other men. But really, when you think about it, a lot of people don’t actually read Piper / Keller / Driscoll, they just skim enough to be able to sound knowing to their friends. A while back I read one of Piper’s books, and then I listened to some of my churchgoing friends talk about it. Eh, they didn’t really read that book. They virtue signal to each other by having a copy of it, barely read, on the shelf or coffee table.

So Hank, I suggest you use those indicators not as warning signs, but caution signs. The good news is, as you note, those women are kinda sorta thinking in the direction you want. The cautious news is, just how seriously do those women take that stuff? My guess is, they don’t take it very seriously. They are just signalling “I’m not a ball breaker! I’m not a New Agey Rachel Held Evans nutbar!”. Don’t grill them on what they read, but maybe rather gently inquire what they believe they read.

All those women are feminists because that’s what is in the water, but some of them are reluctant feminists, not enthusiastic ones. Women like that can be trained.

The difference between a single mother and a single father that causes the one child to do well in the world and the other poorly and what each parent is meant to instill in the child. Therefore, yes, a child should have both parents and will be better for it.

In the end, however, a person can function both financially and responsibly with what a good father can instill in them. The mother on the other hand only really instills emotion and empathy, thus almost always creating an adult that cannot function or be responsible and functions not on reason or logic but on pure emotions.

In the end, however, a person can function both financially and responsibly with what a good father can instill in them. The mother on the other hand only really instills emotion and empathy, thus almost always creating an adult that cannot function or be responsible and functions not on reason or logic but on pure emotions.

I don’t entirely disagree, but I think the modeling that happens in a happy, patriarchal home is essential for the reproduction of civilization. I didn’t have any models in my own family unit, as my mother upheld the fine Mormon tradition of divorcing my father when I was in my tender years, and stealing all his money, carting me and my sister around the continent (on dad’s dime, of course) while she chased around looking for a new Mormon simp who wanted to raise a couple of divorce bastards. (She found him, and I still feel sorry for him).

I did see models in some (not all) of my relatives, and in the parents of several friends of mine. When children grow up in a harmonious, intact family, they learn valuable skills (conflict-resolution, communication, teamwork) that are not really available to kids who are raised by one-parent families.

If we are going to have a healthy society again, we need to fight very hard to return this to the norm.

I would also like to thank your President for turning a losing campaign into certain victory – surely you don’t mean to tell me that he is so politically inept and politically un-savvy that he did not realise that his impertinent remarks even as a guest in my country would persuade the people of Britain to do the very opposite of what he proposed.

Funny bit is that Obama has been poison to every other Politician that he’s tried to help, throughout his time as President. He’s now something like 150 for 150 in that department. Glad we could help, in that dark humor way. 🙂

Yes, Opus, congrats to you and your compatriots for a very blessed victory at the polls! It also speaks to the integrity of your election process that the popular will, however so very obviously unpopular with the Establishment, was made clear. Cameron’s resignation was sweet icing on the cake.

As for our “Dear Figurehead,” I think the rest of the world learned a while ago that whatever position he espouses or whomever he endorses serves as a cue to sprint hastily in the opposite direction.

Must have felt like this in America on 5th July 1776 – only Scotland (of course) and London (no longer an English City) voted to Remain. This is not a victory for Great Britain but for England (and Wales).

When there are only a small percentage of single-parent families in society, the children often turn out pretty well, especially if their grandparents live locally and are actively involved with the children. This was often the case in the 50s and 60s. When the rate of single parenthood (by divorce or by choice) is high for a couple of generations, there is no safety net within the family and the children end up with insurmountable problems.

My sister and I have both noticed that in the first generation of illegitimacy the boys seem to suffer a lot more than the girls, but by the second or third generation of illegitimacy the girls also have sky-high rates of delinquency, unwed motherhood, etc.

Opus: How serious are the anti-Brexit Londoners about wanting to separate London from the rest of the U.K.? Sounds like a civil war is brewing.

Not a big BBC fan but they did have a fantastic real-time website showing election results. I watched the results come in county by county last night until the outcome was clear. Opus, congratulations on your country exhibiting a show of sanity when it really counted. We celebrate with you.

At 4% difference, it was enough to get outside the voter fraud margin. When it’s 1-2%, there’s enough room for shenanigans to take over. So the actual desire was likely closer to the 53/54% range. That’s a pretty solid victory.

But this is only the opening salvo in what is going to be a long-running war. Godspeed, all.

Congratulations, Opus. A great day for England, better than winning the World Cup, for sure.

I also mentioned to someone this morning that of course London was the bog exception in England because London really isn’t English in any meaningful sense any longer. Pause, but then agreement, if grudging. I also explained that most English would be overjoyed to see Scotland bugger off — they cost money and they endlessly whinge. Good luck to Edinburgh convincing Bruxelles that they deserve to be an EU member state.

I would like to thank everyone who has lately commented on this thread for their very kind words. Whether the Brexit vote is seen in years to come as one of those moments when the affairs of the world appeared to undergo a seismic shift or whether it is both quickly forgotten and overtaken by events remains to be seen. The whining from the losers reveals a certain petulance. Laura, City States have a long and noble history but I cannot quite see Greater London (the City of London is a different entity) becoming independent.

Last night my two buddies and I went out for a Brexit celebration and yet – you’d better be sitting down for this – they had both voted to Remain. One explained to me that although he voted Remain he was actually a secret Brexit supporter, and the other rather wanted a split vote – he has family in a western European country and he was naturally concerned for them – but at the same time was keen to keep everyone else out.

I think Referenda are a bad thing. The political settlement in Britain merely provides as it says at the commencement of every statute that the enactment is ‘made by the King with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal and the Commons in this Parliament here assembled’. The only one of these that needs voting in is the Commons. It works this way: the country being divided into parliamentary constituencies, every four or five years a vote is to be taken to see who will be the local representative and anyone may put themselves up for election. One then chooses ones favoured candidate. That person then gets on with his responsibilities without interference for the length of the parliament; he is a representative not a delegate. Referenda have no part in this. To ask the country to vote in such, is, to my mind a derogation of the responsibilities of the Government to govern. Our democracy unlike say the Swiss is representative not direct. Government only seeks support on a referendum when it seeks retrospective support for its somewhat dubious actions and this has been the case with our, so far, two referenda. When voting for a parliamentary candidate one knows that even if ones man is not elected one will get another chance to select ones favoured representative in another four or five years. A referenda is not open to renewal at least on a regular and prescribed basis. This is a bad thing and I am pleased to see that America does not indulge in this nonsense.

Despite the celebrations and the wailings the fact is that Great Britain has always been semi-detached from the European Union – not to mention physically isolated by a rather large moat – we dislike Europeans although we are polite to their face; we are not part of the Schengen area agreement and neither have we adopted the Euro-zone currency. To that extent, gaining control of our borders (and the like) is a comparatively small though vital step. We do not see ourselves as European – our loyalty is to The Empire (now renamed the Commonwealth) but the people have not changed – and are also, frankly, far more at ease with our American cousins.

I would also like to add as this may not be obvious to Americans, that we do not vote for Her Majesties Prime Minister or anyone other than our local parliamentary Representative.

On the question of The Commonwealth we like (say) Jamaicans who are Empire but not (say ) Somalians who are not. I will never forget an occasion when I was in Chicago and when I was introduced to a sub-continent Indian – we immediately (metaphorically) fell into each other’s arms as though we were long lost brothers. I always felt great affection for TFH. To that extent we are little colour blind.

Looking Glass @ June 24, 2016 at 5:56 am:
“Funny bit is that Obama has been poison to every other Politician that he’s tried to help, throughout his time as President. He’s now something like 150 for 150 in that department.”

Obama has thrown so many allies under the bus, I think he does it on reflex now. “Of course, Mr. Cameron, I’d be glad to help. *shove* Aww, I did it again!”

So Hank, I suggest you use those indicators not as warning signs, but caution signs. The good news is, as you note, those women are kinda sorta thinking in the direction you want. The cautious news is, just how seriously do those women take that stuff? My guess is, they don’t take it very seriously. They are just signalling “I’m not a ball breaker! I’m not a New Agey Rachel Held Evans nutbar!”. Don’t grill them on what they read, but maybe rather gently inquire what they believe they read.

Yeah, thanks, that’s good advice, and it’s along the lines of what I was thinking, too. It’s not even been an issue yet, though, but it’s just interesting that other than Driscoll and Piper, I’d never even heard of any of those guys until I read about them on this site, and now, I keep seeing and hearing their names all over the place. The women’s classes at one of the churches I visited this year included studies of two of Matt Chandler’s books, and the day I visited, the pastor mentioned having gone to a conference by Tim Keller once. I would have had no idea who those people were if not for this site, so now, when I hear those names mentioned as influences on a particular person or a place, I know to be cautious.

As I mentioned above and for the reasons I there set out I think Referenda are a bad thing. There is no turning back – without revealing the referendum to be failed political sleight-of-hand. Because there is no turning back attitudes harden and the referendum has as it were coaxed the woodworm out of the wood. I would now not feel much at ease in the company of a committed Remainer indeed I have felt compelled to do some unfriending on Facebook disgusted by the petulance and anti-english rhetoric, and from people who had nothing to say thereon before the Referendum – that reveals, perhaps, the gap between the political elite and the man or woman in the street.

What I have noticed is that those who want to remain are not in the true sense British (or English) – and I am not intending to refer to the Africans or Asians. These people have interests in European and other countries and sometimes triple or even quadruple nationality. They frequently live in multi-million pound houses in white flight land – in short, are champagne socialist. Equality would require that they did not have an equal vote with those of us who have no such peripatetic opportunities. Their wailing on Facebook fail Norman Tebbitt’s cricket test – a simple test to determine ones true loyalties. One cannot call them traitors as they are not properly English though they treat my country as if it were theirs pass otherwise unnoticed (I am not referring to the Jews) and have benefited from its generosity. We had it in the 1140s and then in the 1640s and may (by the 2040s – as I have long predicted) have it again: I refer of course to civil war.